American politics

Benghazi

Plot hole

THE inquiry into the Benghazi affair is lending increasing substance to opponents' charges that the Obama administration massaged its talking points on the attacks, playing down the possible involvement of al-Qaeda-linked extremists and playing up linkages to an anti-Muslim video, in order to [EXPLANATION OF WHY THIS WOULD MAKE SENSE TK].

Let us return to the basics here, because what's going on in Washington right now is devoid of reason.

Yesterday the White House released a large dump of emails detailing the process of talking-point revision that took place in the run-up to Susan Rice's talk-show appearances in September. Those emails show a long series of contested revisions between staffers in the State Department, the CIA, and the White House over whether or not to include mention of al-Qaeda, whether or not to note CIA warnings of possible attacks, and various other topics. The CIA wanted to fend off possible accusations that they were at fault for failing to protect the Benghazi location. The State Department wanted to protect itself from what it felt was a CIA effort to blame it for insufficient security, particularly since, as is now known from testimony (though not mentioned in the emails, and obviously not in the talking points themselves) the Benghazi outpost was primarily a CIA operation. The White House intervened, in its own words, to protect the "equities" of the different agencies. Conservatives charge, however, that White House intervention was biased towards the State Department.

At this point the key question is becoming clear. That question is, as it has been from the beginning: who cares?

The accusation made at the start of the Benghazi affair was that the administration had mischaracterised the attacks and misled the American people in order to protect itself in the presidential campaign. This accusation never made any sense, because there was no electoral advantage to be gained by implying that the attacks at Benghazi were pre-planned rather than spontaneous, or that al-Qaeda was or was not involved. In the current round of shark-feeding, the accusation seems to be that the administration intervened in order to shield the State Department from the CIA. This appears not to be true; the initial ABC report last Friday on which it was based turned out, once the full emails were revealed, to be false and based on altered quotes. But if it were true, so what? Or perhaps the accusation is that the administration intervened in order to minimise the impression that State or the CIA had made serious errors by failing to adequately protect the Benghazi mission. But the subsequent independent inquiry quickly did come to that conclusion. If the administration happened not to make that statement in its immediate response three days after the attacks, and instead left it for an independent inquiry that came out a month later, what difference does that make?

There have been more serious accusations during the course of the hearings. The most serious was that the administration or senior military officials intervened to deliberately order units that could have come to the aid of the besieged mission to "stand down". These accusations have the disadvantage of being both untrue and completely crazy, not to mention slanderous towards the US military, and have been thoroughly debunked.

So what are we talking about here?

What we're talking about, at this point, is one thing. In November, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, told the press that the talking points Ms Rice received had only been altered once, to change a minor terminology issue, and that this had come at the behest of the intelligence services. That was false. Why did Mr Carney say it? It's hard to figure out. It certainly would have helped end the controversy more quickly if it had been true, but given that it wasn't true, it clearly helped prolong the controversy. And the press that reported Mr Carney's lie is naturally furious. That's reasonable. I've been lied to by government spokespeople on subjects that were far more serious than this one, and it sure is infuriating. Spokespeople should not feel that they can get away with telling little white lies to the press. If they think they can, they may lie on matters of consequence.

This, however, is not a matter of consequence. How extensive the edits were on the talking points that Susan Rice used for TV appearances on one Sunday in September, and whether they came only from CIA or from CIA, the State Department, and the White House—this makes no difference to anyone outside the DC political and press community. Washington is obsessed by this affair. People around the world should recognise that Washington's obsession with this affair is yet another sign that America's capital is turning into a self-obsessed viper pit of scheming courtiers who care only about winning favour and office, and not about governing the country they're supposed to be running.

Why would people feel safer thinking that a State Department/CIA outpost might be overrun by crowds of furious Muslim civilians who hate Americans than they would thinking that a State Department outpost might be overrun by a Muslim terrorist militia who hate Americans? I mean people think all kinds of crazy things, but it seems like an equal number of people will think the opposite. Why would the administration be thinking one way or the other, and if they were, who cares?

It's always seemed to me that what was going on initially was rooted in a psychological feeling on Republicans' part that calling something "popular" or "spontaneous" implies that it might somehow be justifiable, that it has some authenticity. I think what burns them is the feeling that the administration might be recognising the authentic existence of hatred of America rather than fulminating against it the way Bush used to. I still think that was what drove the scandal at the beginning, though it never made any rational sense; and by now it's evolved into something that just has no logic at all except its own weird will to life.

Everything they say or do is first vetted thru a political prism, even events of national security with a loss of life. We deserve better.
.
No straight-thinking mind would quibble with this.
.
My question: You mean the GOP doesn't do the same?
.
Especially the ones in that Party who watch Big Fox and close their eyes to Big Bird, the ones who won't let people believe in any faith different from theirs, who think the best way to settle differences is by firing a shot, who thinks the old and sick should voluntarily stop thier lives but at the same time believe suicide is a mortal sin....
.
This is a real Q. I agree we all deserve better.
.
Maybe we deserve a Born-Again Government.
.
Which party should be the first to go in your opinion?

Obama is turning into nearly as much of a disaster as Bush Jr. was. It isn't so much that he did as much active damage, like his predecessor. It's the continued damage he's adding on to his predecessor's works, combined with the squandered opportunities to take a new direction when he came into office.

TBTF, Guantanamo, civil liberties from wiretapping to medical marijuana. All of them have not only just continued on as they were, but gotten worse. He's taken the worst of the Republican party and heaped in on to the worst of the Democratic party - Obamacare is the ultimate example of this. Crony capitalism tacked on to a socialist system, with very few of the benefits of either.

Who cares? Well, if State messed up, that will be used to tar Hillary in 2016. That's kind of a big deal to some people.

The way the "it was just a riot, not a terrorist attack" statement makes sense as a campaign tactic is that Obama was basking in the public satisfaction over the death of bin Laden. If al Qaeda pulled off an assassination after that, the achievement of killing bin Laden pales a bit in the public's mind. That can translate into real votes: "Oh, Obama isn't really keeping us safe after all. Guess I'd better vote Republican; they're strong on defense and terrorism."

Is that thinking really what was going on inside the Obama camp? I have no idea. All I'm saying is that it's somewhat plausible.

"... Washington's obsession with this affair is yet another sign that America's capital is turning into a self-obsessed viper pit of scheming courtiers who care only about winning favour and office, and not about governing the country they're supposed to be running."

That probably is the thought process, but what I simply can't understand is how you have to keep digging through muck looking for something to embarrass Hillary Clinton with. She's half a couple whose drawers fly from the flagpole. We have had documented for us her marital life, professional life, political life and there have been scandals in each. She's told lies and made racist-sounding statements on both sides which either happened on camera, in front of a mike or within earshot of lots of people. Search YouTube for "Dirt" and half the videos will feature her. Google "scandal" and the results will ask you if you meant "Hillary Clinton." Blindfold yourself, throw a bale of newspapers from the most recent twenty years in the air and snatch the page that in your trousers and the chances are better that it contains the words "Hillary Clinton backs away from" than an advertisement.
No, there is no possible explanation for this other than that Republicans are mentally ill, and that explains everything about it.

"There was no electoral advantage to be gained by implying that the attacks at Benghazi were pre-planned rather than spontaneous..."

Bullshit.

Whether the killing of an American ambassador and three other Americans ensued from a spontaneous protest over a video or a terrorist attack, there was a fatal security error.

But the latter error is a significantly worse failure in that terrorist attacks on that embassy were a far more predictable risk. And, even worse, the murdered ambassador had repeatedly expressed concerns about that particular risk, requested greater security, and been denied. Finally, the ambassador had been dispatched to an unsecure location on an anniversary date dear to terrorists in the region.

So the political risk of the death of an ambassador who had foretold his fate, in the run up to a tight election, existed, and created an incentive to deflect blame onto an unrelated video. Our compliant, biased media completely failed to investigate, as a matter of course, the possibility of a coverup, and instead went so far as to editorially attack the idea.

Sure, there are lots of sideshows, like the CIA vs. State angle, misunderstanding of military quick-response capabilities, etc. But M.S.'s efforts to deflect discussion of the coverup onto the sideshows is like efforts to deflect responsibility for the attack onto the video. Monkey see, monkey do.

I'm not sure if you're right about the psychology of the Republicans, but I'm pretty sure you're right that this has been an outrage looking for a provocation since the story broke.

The funny thing is that I think "how the hell do you open a station in Benghazi, Libya during a civil war and not realize it will be attacked at some point soon?" would have been a pretty good complaint. Because Romney et al started with semantics, they sounded stupid and petty and not unfairly. The so what, I think, is that in order to erase the appearance of foolish trifling, they have adopted a strategy of nit-picking an issue that nobody else finds notable.

Dude, is this why you became a journalist? To write political apologias to the party in power.

The Republicans are certainly fishing, but the whole "who cares" attitude is repulsive to say the least. We've gone down the rabbit hole and now have progressive journalists writing things like, "not to mention slanderous towards the US military..."

Aren't you on the side that is supposed to be questioning U.S. militarism? I guess not. At this point, the only difference between neocon interventionism and neoliberal interventionism is a more erudite pronunciation of the word nuclear.

What MS is stating is that the charges are trumped up, in order to damage the Obama administration.
.
And, the GOP has a history of this stuff (Whitewater Investigation, "Travelgate" Investigation...) -
.
While engaging in incompetencies much worse than Benghazi when they're in power (Iraqi invasion, Iran Contra...).

"That question is, as it has been from the beginning: who cares?"
.
Only the GOP. It's the GOP-antibodies' effort to keep the Democratic president in power from doing much of any consequence.
.
See: Whitewater Investigation; Rose Law Firm Investigation; "Travelgate" Investigation...

Because all the main players were trying to CYA their own bad decisions over this fiasco. The CIA for not vetting its own local security contractors. State Dept. for allowing its diplomat to be sent to an insecure location, while all other Benghazi consular missions were being pulled out, and watching haplessly as their mission was slaughtered. The military command for being feeble and indecisive. And lastly, the Obama White House for caring more about how the deaths of these diplomats would be seen and how it might affect the President's reelection. So the muslin video director gets a perp walk in a blatant act of political misdirection and misfeasance, and we shouldn't care about that?! I'm incredulous MS that you find this to be a little nothing.

Fox is even better, which spends half the day complaining about how other news outlets - in their opinion - aren't covering the news.
.
So, this is news? Or an advertisement for Fox? Or, a way to affirm it's viewership that their biases aren't being met? Or, all of the above?

Republicans have kept repeating this for 9 months, but there's no evidence that any of it is true. None. The idea that there was electoral advantage to be had here is gibberish. How many American soldiers were killed in deliberate pre-planned Taliban attacks in September 2012, and in every month since? Nobody's ever tried to claim those were "spontaneous", and voters don't care about them. At all. If the GOP was thinking during the election that the key to damaging the Obama campaign was saying the name "al-Qaeda" a lot, that helps explain why they lost.